ALEC Can’t Deny Its Record of Climate Change Disinformation

Faced with an ongoing exodus of corporate funders — News Corp and Occidental Petroleum are among the latest departures — the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is suddenly in a hurry to hide its long history of denying the reality of climate change.

But there’s no hiding the fact that ALEC has fought for decades to inappropriately sow doubt around the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that its cause is largely man-made, and that we need to do something about it.

Photo: Kate Cell

Rather than address legitimate concerns from its members and the public that ALEC is out of touch on this issue, it has stuck to a canned response denying they even have a position on climate. ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson recently told NPR’s Diane Rehm Show that, “We as an organization specifically do not comment on climate change.”

In reality, ALEC’s current position on climate change (posted on its website) is dismissive of climate change as a “historical phenomenon” and ignores the scientific consensus on human contributions to climate change by stating “the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions.”

But that’s just it — there is no debate among the scientific community. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists — more than 97 percent — agree that global warming is real and largely caused by humans. In fact, the American Association for the Advancement of Science just again confirmed that scientists are now as certain about human contributions to climate change as they are that smoking causes cancer.

ALEC’s claim that there remains a legitimate debate is a deliberate strategy to delay action to address climate change.

But ALEC’s delicately-worded position statement is tame compared to the litany of disinformation about climate science that the group pushes onto its legislator-members at meetings and through the organization’s publications. ALEC’s annual meeting in Dallas this year included a session where Joseph Bast, president of the climate contrarian Heartland Institute, falsely claimed that “There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.”

Increased coastal flooding is just one of the harmful impacts expected from climate change. ALEC should recognize the science behind climate change and begin working in a constructive manner to find solutions to address the issue. Photo: Sean Bath

Bast went on to tell the state legislators that “there is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in doing so.” This could not be further from the truth. Climate change has serious implications for our health, environment, and economy, and right now we are experiencing the impacts of an atmosphere overloaded with carbon dioxide.

Providing a one-sided platform for climate contrarians to mislead state legislators on the science has pretty much been the norm for ALEC since the 1990’s. For example, a 1995 ALEC publication similarly claimed, “The Earth’s temperature is in a constant state of flux, and global climate data does not support the contention, held by some, that human activity has contributed to global warming.” Just a few years later, in 1998, another ALEC workshop claimed, “The traditional scientific method has not proven the assertion that human activity has caused any overall warming of the planet.”

Companies that remain associated with ALEC have a responsibility to demand an end to the group’s long campaign of disinformation against climate science. If ALEC refuses and continues to slip further out of touch with the reality of climate change, cutting ties with the organization is the appropriate response, and we applaud those companies that do so.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

Philip Haddad

There is no need to reduce CO2 levels by the “capture and store” strategy being espoused by individuals, corporations, and governments. First, it is not the CO2 being emitted by fossil fuels that is the problem. It is the HEAT being released by the combustion of fossil fuels. That is the whole purpose of burning fuel, and the amount of heat released by our use of energy is more than four times greater than the amount required to raise air temperatures by the recorded rise. This can be easily confirmed by anyone. Annual energy consumption exceeds 16 terawatts, the mass of the atmosphere is 1166x10E16 pounds, and the specific heat is 0.24, giving a potential of `0.18*F rise annually. Secondly to reduce the CO2 concentration by 1 ppm requires the removal of 9 billion tons of CO2. The question is what is the “target” level when CO2 is “acceptable”? CO2 was 320 ppm in 1965, 350 in 1990, and is more than 400 at present. (At what point do you think CO2 became THE cause of global warming? There is no doubt that fossil fuels contribute to 80% of our problem, but nuclear,although CO2-free, adds three times the total heat as its electrical output. Both fossil and nuclear must be largely replaced by renewable sources such as solar, wind, etc., but let’s do away with cap-and-trade, taxing of CO2, and the ridiculous notion of carbon capture and storage. Focus on HEAT and the rest will take care of itself.

bowdawg

Total nonsense.

Philip Haddad

You cannot disprove a single thing that I have said. Why don’t you be specific about your objections instead of acting like a troll?

bowdawg

Globally the anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) is only about 1% of the energy flux being added to Earth because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. It is the greenhouse gasses trapping the sun’s radiated heat that is the problem. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/

Philip Haddad

You are probably referring to the 2.8 watts/m2 that is the total of the CO2 effect. But what has been the change during the last century. It is only the change that has occurred since we started our great increase in energy consumption that is relevant in this discussion. Both CO2 and heat emissions have increased, but it is only the change in heat emissions that have been or can be measured.

bowdawg

Again, total nonsense. Google is your friend. I’m not going to do the work for you this time. Read the science.

Philip Haddad

You have not done a lick of work to make the comments you have made to date. Absolutely no response to my comment that the TOTAL heat trapped by greenhouse gases is the figure you referred to and has no bearing on the discussion of what were the CHANGES in heat sources over the past century which is the only thing of relevance.